Reconquista

[porkenbeans]

I'm strangely fond of porkenbeans' aesthetic. If it isn't used for this map, it should find its way into another.


--Andy

Thank you Andy. Which version are you complimenting ? I have done several, and I am very interested to find out exactly which version is the most popular, and why.

This will help me to develop this map, in the right direction. Thanx again.

[MarshalNey]

Click image to enlarge.

Well, here's what I got. Sorry to keep you guys waiting, I've been swamped with work and this 'example map' took a lot longer than I planned.

Anyway, this is roughly what I'm proposing for the symbols on The Bastard's map. Certainly this is not meant to be definitive, but hopefully it says in pictures what I couldn't get across in words.

ICON IDEAS:
Hopefully, you'll notice how the Castles are made to draw the eye, being the most prominent, and next the cities, and finally the towns.

As for the cities, I used a scaled-down version of Pork's icons from his map as "tree toppers" in place of the very tiny symbols that The Bastard had. I removed the shields as identifiers of religion.

I tried using white borders instead of black for the icons, because all of those heavy lines were competing for attention when I used black. I think, perhaps, seeing the end result, that I could change the castles' outlines back to black to give it more prominence, but I think overall the idea still comes across.

Take note that this map is merely to illustrate, I'm not a graphics guru like Porknbeans <bows>. If any of these ideas find favor, hopefully he can work his magic and make it pretty.

Although the shields are a non-gameplay element in this map (see below), I kept them in because they look cool and provide very good flavor. I moved them from the cities onto the nearest castle where possible, but likely some of them are in the wrong place. EDIT: It occurred to me before I even started this map that one might be able to dispense with the Castle Icons altogether and simply use the Shields alone to represent the castles, but I did not have the time to make this into a workable aesthetic with an army circle. If done well, however, I think it would make the map an even easier read.

GAMEPLAY CHANGES:
The shields are essentially flavor right now in this context, I put them as a background for the nearest castle. When I analyzed the gameplay, the shields were nearly an uneeded identifier, as 12 of the 17 cities had one. That left a very small number of non-religious cities. By making all cities religious, the shields become superfulous. This is the only change that I made to the gameplay.

CONCLUSION:
I feel as though I can read the gameplay easier at a glance with this map, rough as it is. However, that's hard for me to judge since I spent more than couple of hours cobbling it together.

I did notice, however, that the territory connections are not explicit in some areas, as some others have mentioned, because the icons overlap impassibles. In order to get a better idea of the gameplay, I'd have to know how you were picturing the territory connections, The Bastard... are all territories in the same 'region' adjacent to each other?

Finally, I think that some clarity could also be added to the map simply by some judicious rearranging of the territory labels (I moved a few squeezing in the bigger castles).

Again, sorry that this took so long.

Marshal Ney

[porkenbeans]

I can dig some of your thoughts, and the illustration helped to explain your plan.

I do not think however, that this layout does enough, to address the overwhelming, main issue.

There is still just too much going on. I have said this already but, I think that there are too many territs for the available land area. It would be much easier to work with a 60 territ count. on the land area.

There are just too many different icons as well. some of them are even stacked on one territ. all of this business is what is holding this map up.

Lowering the territ count to 60, also allows enough room so that each territ, has its own borders. Just that one little thing moves this map in the right direction by bounds.

This gameplay or even bast's could possibly be able to pull it off if you just nixed all of the icons, save maybe the shields.

Denote towns, cities, castles etc. with different text. The towns and cities for example could be the same text but different colors. Castles and shields can be the same text and color. one has the shield icon, while the other has no icon.

This way there is only one icon used. The shield.

You can further denote religious values if you want, by coloring the land differently or bring in the moon and cross icons.

Anything that can help streamline this game will be of much benefit.

I have started a version that uses this "text-plianation" concept. Once the icons are removed, and all of that excess paint scraped off, The map really begins to come into focus. I would still lobby for 60 or so territories.

This link is the 60 territ template, that I posted earlier. I wish you guys would try, just for shits and giggles, to make a version or two with it. Experiment with only using 3 or less (or zero) icons. The borders can be altered here and there as needed and the names can be given that best represents the area. But in the end the map will start to realize its goal to become more streamlined.

I have seen many new mapmakers try to do too much, and/or want to have a million territs. If CC had larger map restrictions, then a map like this would not be that much of a problem.

Believe me, I know from the experience I got, trying to make World 3.0 (or whatever I called it). How do you go about making a world map with all of the Countries of the world ?
Well I found out that CC's size restrictions makes the attempt feudal.

CC already knows that there are a whole slue of maps that could be made that move this site to a different level. The thinking on this current size limit ,is so that people with small monitors, can be catered to. Having a small monitor myself, I would still like to see larger maps. Nothing gigantic or anything. Maybe something like 1000x800. But that is another thread.

Thank you for the time and effort that you have given to this project. You are one of the best members on this team, IMO.

viewtopic.php?f=241&t=110878&start=60#p2588200

[theBastard]

Click image to enlarge.

Anyway, this is roughly what I'm proposing for the symbols on The Bastard's map. Certainly this is not meant to be definitive, but hopefully it says in pictures what I couldn't get across in words.

yes, your mark for religious centres looks better as my icons messy on the all map . but in my last version I kicked off religious symbols - with shields there were too much symbols - and the politics influence and military powers were realy important - the religion was (as often) pretext. also religious influence was united with politics and military...
therefore (for better GP) I think religion could be combined with politics - which is represents with shields.

ICON IDEAS:
Hopefully, you'll notice how the Castles are made to draw the eye, being the most prominent, and next the cities, and finally the towns.

As for the cities, I used a scaled-down version of Pork's icons from his map as "tree toppers" in place of the very tiny symbols that The Bastard had. I removed the shields as identifiers of religion.

yes, now castles are dominant, but why so much? now they have nothing important for GP. maybe we could do any bonus for holding 2/3/4 shields?

I tried using white borders instead of black for the icons, because all of those heavy lines were competing for attention when I used black. I think, perhaps, seeing the end result, that I could change the castles' outlines back to black to give it more prominence, but I think overall the idea still comes across.

Take note that this map is merely to illustrate, I'm not a graphics guru like Porknbeans <bows>. If any of these ideas find favor, hopefully he can work his magic and make it pretty.

I did borders of settlements black (as for land territories) because there is better see where borders go. maybe I´m wrong...

yes, this is my biggest problem with creatin any map - pork is graphics guru, not me

Although the shields are a non-gameplay element in this map (see below), I kept them in because they look cool and provide very good flavor. I moved them from the cities onto the nearest castle where possible, but likely some of them are in the wrong place. EDIT: It occurred to me before I even started this map that one might be able to dispense with the Castle Icons altogether and simply use the Shields alone to represent the castles, but I did not have the time to make this into a workable aesthetic with an army circle. If done well, however, I think it would make the map an even easier read.

yes, shields looks cool, but are baseless now. and could confuse players... so kick them off or add them any bonus or something, I think...
I think castles do not need flags. only cities are important by religion.

GAMEPLAY CHANGES:
The shields are essentially flavor right now in this context, I put them as a background for the nearest castle. When I analyzed the gameplay, the shields were nearly an uneeded identifier, as 12 of the 17 cities had one. That left a very small number of non-religious cities. By making all cities religious, the shields become superfulous. This is the only change that I made to the gameplay.

is it not better to have the same number of christian/moorish cities while pair of them makes bonus? and must all cities be religious centres?

CONCLUSION:
I feel as though I can read the gameplay easier at a glance with this map, rough as it is. However, that's hard for me to judge since I spent more than couple of hours cobbling it together.

GP looks fine, just need a little think about. if we will have religion there (represents christian reconquista of Iberia from moors) we can also have politics there (represents unification of christian kingdoms/principalities). as I wrote, my idea was to show all these events.

I did notice, however, that the territory connections are not explicit in some areas, as some others have mentioned, because the icons overlap impassibles. In order to get a better idea of the gameplay, I'd have to know how you were picturing the territory connections, The Bastard... are all territories in the same 'region' adjacent to each other?

Finally, I think that some clarity could also be added to the map simply by some judicious rearranging of the territory labels (I moved a few squeezing in the bigger castles).

yes, I did castles as crossing the rivers (for example). this shows they important, strategic positions and therefore I think setttlements need the same border as land territories.

if you will have time show me where are borders not clear and I will edit it or explain how I though it...

Again, sorry that this took so long.

Marshal Ney

nevermind, everybody must live also on real life . thanks Marshal for your help and work.

[theBastard]

There is still just too much going on. I have said this already but, I think that there are too many territs for the available land area. It would be much easier to work with a 60 territ count. on the land area.

I will look if any land territores could be kicked off.

There are just too many different icons as well. some of them are even stacked on one territ. all of this business is what is holding this map up.

I saw maps where were much more different icons (and I did not played them, because I did not understand exactly GP with my poor english). in my version are only 4 different icons - castles, cities, towns, shield. and again for me are settlements territories (with special shape) but not icons. icons are shields, crosses, crescents...

This gameplay or even bast's could possibly be able to pull it off if you just nixed all of the icons, save maybe the shields.

pork, this is from medieval era - the settlements were important (in war) not villages or land. if we will kick off settlements, if we will kick off "no man´s" land, by what could be this map special?

Denote towns, cities, castles etc. with different text. The towns and cities for example could be the same text but different colors. Castles and shields can be the same text and color. one has the shield icon, while the other has no icon.

they can not have different colours. they are part of the same bonus area, so they must be coloured with the same colour.

I have started a version that uses this "text-plianation" concept. Once the icons are removed, and all of that excess paint scraped off, The map really begins to come into focus. I would still lobby for 60 or so territories.

This link is the 60 territ template, that I posted earlier. I wish you guys would try, just for shits and giggles, to make a version or two with it. Experiment with only using 3 or less (or zero) icons. The borders can be altered here and there as needed and the names can be given that best represents the area. But in the end the map will start to realize its goal to become more streamlined.
viewtopic.php?f=241&t=110878&start=60#p2588200

why only 60 territories? and at your map were much different icons. pork, please do not forgot "no-man´s" territories - this is my original idea , so I want them in...

I will think how to implement religion to the GP (Marshal´s idea is not bad). but maybe we could leave religion - or better said united it with politics.
and I´m looking forward to your next ideas.

in my last version - shields represents capitals (or important centres) of kingdoms/principalities/taifas - so who holds shield he rule the centre of politics and religion influence. the capitals were often religious centres and therefore I united politics with religion. religion in war strategy has little importance, but bonus made by combination of christians/moorish shield represents religious problem...

uf, long post, I´m tried

thanks everybody for feedbacks and ideas.

[porkenbeans]

I saw maps where were much more different icons (and I did not played them, because I did not understand exactly GP with my poor english). in my version are only 4 different icons - castles, cities, towns, shield. and again for me are settlements territories (with special shape) but not icons. icons are shields, crosses, crescents...

Red- Yes I agree that maps with too many different icons and such are confusing.

green- First, you are trying to have close to 100 territs on this map. After you put down all of that text, there is not much room to be adding dozens of different icons. At least if you start with a map like the template with the 60 territ count, you would be in a much better position to make this map a little more on the complicated side, but much easier to look at.

orange- CC has certain consistencies, that go to make it easy to learn any map, with only a modest amount of effort. In other words, -mountains and rivers are "common" impasses. So are boundary lines that separate territs. The other "common" way is to seperate territs with roads or train tracks and the like. This is only drawing lines that connect territs. Most maps use one or the other method, while a few have used both. some of them are CC's best maps, and some just do not pull it off well at all. I have noticed however that the ones in my opinion that pull it off are the ones hat have a smaller territ count.

it is against CC common practice to use icon "special" shaped territs. So icons are icons. You can not place them inside a territ and call them territs. This is a major cause for confusion.

The territ count on this map is limiting you at every turn. You just can not expect to put everything that you want on this map. For the available land area, there is only so much room. I have had to deal with this same issue on many maps. I know how it feels to want to put more than what there is room for.

My suggestion is take what you have and set it aside for just a moment. Considering it to be the best with this GP at the time being.

Then see how you would go about making a much more streamlined CC map about Reconquista. Do not try to make it a college course. just a simple and easy to understand game that revolves around the subject, but is not trying to tell the whole story. Just the very basic facts need to be included. If your first version is the "college course", lets see if we can bang out the grade school version.

After working on that I suspect that you may even start to fall in love with that version too. Maybe, it may even show you that as good as you think an idea is, The first version is not always the best. Take comfort in the fact, that you must start somewhere. The place that you start, will always lead to your conclusion.

[MarshalNey]

yes, your mark for religious centres looks better as my icons messy on the all map . but in my last version I kicked off religious symbols - with shields there were too much symbols - and the politics influence and military powers were realy important - the religion was (as often) pretext. also religious influence was united with politics and military...
therefore (for better GP) I think religion could be combined with politics - which is represents with shields.

I guess what I'm hoping is that the basic conepts come across. The details of what symbol to be used to represent a gameplay aspect are flexible. I removed the shields because there weren't enough to give to every city and my concept was to reduce the number of necessary GP symbols without significantly changing your ideas.

I also think that the two symbols with different colors (red vs. yellow) make them easier to spot on the map than upright shields vs. sideways shields (although this still worked, I was just trying to go as bare-bones as possible).

yes, now castles are dominant, but why so much? now they have nothing important for GP. maybe we could do any bonus for holding 2/3/4 shields?

Adding a bonus for the shields would be good if you wanted to give them a gameplay aspect and keep them where I put them (roughly).

However, the important thing here again is the concept. The Castles are prominent because something has to be in order to make each symbol distinct to the eye.

Furthermore, the Castles are the rarest symbol, so making them the biggest won't overload the map. Also, for gameplay, the castles actually give the best bonus:

Castles = +2 per 1 castle
Cities = +3 per 2 cities (only with Christian/Moorish pair)
Towns = +1 per 3 towns


To be honest, though, I don't care if you wanted the Cities to be the biggest, as long as the symbols of each type are of noticeably different size. It doesn't matter if any of the graphics I cobbled get used; I'm just hoping that they help develop your ideas into a map that illustrates the gameplay- which I consider to be simple enough to do just fine if presented well.

Hmmm.... maybe I should have tried to outline the concept in my post, although again I'll be using words not pictures, and the English barrier only hurts. Well... here's what I was thinking in words:

The symbols for Castles, Cities, Towns and No-Man's Lands need to have hugely obvious differences. This is best done though color, shade, size, and shape. Since the colors (and really shades) need to match for bonus regions, that leaves size and shape. So, I think that the symbols of each settlement need to have 4 different sizes and 4 different shapes.

yes, shields looks cool, but are baseless now. and could confuse players... so kick them off or add them any bonus or something, I think...
I think castles do not need flags. only cities are important by religion.

I'm worried that the shields are getting so much attention. Maybe I should have cut them out so that my basic idea was clearer. However, as political icons I didn't want to just give them the boot, and you seem to like the political center idea so perhaps they can be given a bonus...

Anyway, the flags on the castles are also just a little flavor, certainly not a GP element, but I also felt that they added a bit of prominence to the Castle symbol, which is part of the concept. Their significance is overall very small.

is it not better to have the same number of christian/moorish cities while pair of them makes bonus? and must all cities be religious centres?

I didn't want to change any of your GP elements (except one) so I kept with your original designations of Christian/Moorish cities, which does lead to an imbalanced number of 10 Christian cities and 7 Moorish. By changing just one of the Christian cities into a Moorish city, the numbers become roughly even at 9-8.

As for making all cities religious, I felt for reasons stated before that it simplified the GP a little while helping the clarity a lot. By eliminating the "shield" vs. "non-shield" designation for a city, the legend can be simpler and a player does not have to look for combinations of symbols...

There is still just too much going on. I have said this already but, I think that there are too many territs for the available land area. It would be much easier to work with a 60 territ count. on the land area.

There are just too many different icons as well. some of them are even stacked on one territ. all of this business is what is holding this map up.

Pork, I'm not sure that I agree that the gameplay needs any further simplification. I've seen other quenched maps that get away with just as many elements or more. I'm actually in support of the gameplay as it stands (or with the one modification I suggested, either way) because I think that these elements can be represented on a map and still be relatively clear.

That said, the map might not suffer if a few territories were taken off. Especially if it lowered the territory count to a golden number for the drops. But a drastic cut might pull the guts out of the map.

What is the count of playable territories for the drop, btw, on The Bastard's map? I mean, I can count, but are any of the territories starting out as neutral? I saw some discussion but I don't know what was decided (if anything).

As for the symbols, I'm not sure what is meant by "stacking". Are you talking about icons in the same region or combined in gameplay? As I have them on the map, they are all unique, there are no combinations (the shields are currently flavor).

Lowering the territ count to 60, also allows enough room so that each territ, has its own borders. Just that one little thing moves this map in the right direction by bounds.

It certainly makes the territory connections explicit, which is good, but may not be necessary as long as a legend states that territories in the same region can attack each other. I just don't know if that's what The Bastard wants for gameplay, I'm just assuming that for now. Prison Riot has many more territories than this map and uses "open borders" for gameplay just fine.

Anyway, I think that whichever way The Bastard wants to do it, that it could be done.

This link is the 60 territ template, that I posted earlier. I wish you guys would try, just for shits and giggles, to make a version or two with it. Experiment with only using 3 or less (or zero) icons. The borders can be altered here and there as needed and the names can be given that best represents the area. But in the end the map will start to realize its goal to become more streamlined.

Unfortunately, just doing this map put me way behind on other projects. I wish I was faster but computer graphics are not my natural medium. In addition, as stated earlier, I'm not really in favor of 60 territories (this is a hoorrrible number for drops, and should be banned for maps! It's really evil when you go second or last, especially in team games ) What's more, the number for drops doesn't really become acceptable until 67+, at 70 it's very good. Check out the thread on golden numbers or look it up in the design guidelines- some good soul bothered to do the math so we don't have to

Anyway, the map I posted effectively uses (as The Bastard pointed out) just 4 symbols, 5 if you count Moorish vs. Christian cities. It doesn't seem that bad, when you consider that even 'straightforward' maps like Sydney Metro use 3 symbols, and the complicated ones use 6 or more. I'm not saying that this map is dead easy to understand, but I think it is in the ballpark of other CC maps, which it wasn't a couple of versions ago.

Maybe take a long look and see if you can fiddle? I wish I had more time...

Thank you for the time and effort that you have given to this project. You are one of the best members on this team, IMO.

Well, thanks for the kind words. Best of luck to the both of you, I'll say it again I'm happy with overall GP and think that the right way of presenting it is just around the corner.

[porkenbeans]

http://maps.conquerclub.com/Jamaica3.L.jpg
this is a recent addition by cairns. It has only 42 territs. The original Risk has only 42 territs. There are many very good CC maps that have less than 60 territs.

[MarshalNey]

this is a recent addition by cairns. It has only 42 territs. The original Risk has only 42 territs. There are many very good CC maps that have less than 60 territs.

sigh... yes, that's a fine number. But that isn't what I said.

I'm saying 60 is a bad number. It's one of the worst, actually.

Here's the pertinent info (I dug it up for you):
24-35, 42, 43, 44, 52*, 53*, 57, 58, 59, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70*, 71*, (78), (79), 80, (88), (89), 104*, 114, 115, 116, (138), (139), 140, 141, 142, 143, 160, 161, 176, 177, 178, 179, 186, 187, 188

are the 'golden numbers' for maps.

EDIT: More in-depth analysis reveals that the ones in paratheses are worse than the others (thanks Natty, this is why I shouldn't post dead tired). Furthermore, the numbers with stars (*) are the best.

So 78, 79, 88, 89.... these are OK.

66-69, & 80 are very good numbers to consider.

70, 71 & 104 are the best possible numbers for drops.

Cutting this map down to less than 60 seems so drastic that you'd practically have a different map.

I really have to sleep... I don't even know what I'm doing up...

[natty dread]

the ones in paratheses are the best.

No they're not. They're the worst... they are still acceptable but give unfair drops on 5 or 7 player games.

Ok, I'm seeing several different gameplay plans, but they all have a common problem... have any of you guys considered how you are going to fit all that on the small version? While still being able to fit in the army numbers, and keeping all text, borders etc. legible?

[MarshalNey]

Whoops on the golden numbers... edited my post.

To be absolutely clear on what Natty said, the numbers listed in parentheses are "borderline" for certain numbers of players- usually 5 and 7-player games. For the numbers (78) and (79), that problem only applies to 5-player games.

Ok, I'm seeing several different gameplay plans, but they all have a common problem... have any of you guys considered how you are going to fit all that on the small version? While still being able to fit in the army numbers, and keeping all text, borders etc. legible?

I think that's a very soluble problem, once a large map layout has been decided upon. It's probably wasted effort to think about the small map until then. Pork, for instance, is advocating major gameplay changes and territory count revisions, which would affect the small map question (in a positive way).

However, I think that The Bastard's version is very doable as a small map, with enough patience and work. Certainly there are maps that use many more than 89 named territories and still function fine- the labels can be changed to abbreviations if need be.

Any thoughts on the clarity of the gameplay of the large versions?

[porkenbeans]

I have witnessed this same problem on many maps. For this reason, a few vets advocate starting with the small map. I do not subscribe to this however. My reason is simple. You will always loose detail when you scale down. Making the quality of the graphics not as good as they could be.

I would much rather start with the large version, and just keep in mind, that it will need to be scaled down for the small version. I try to make things like text and icons larger than they need to be, on the large. Then I know that I am safe when it comes time to make the small version.

Here is a good example of a map that uses icons very effectively. It has 44 territs, so there is lots of room for them. This map works very well to create complex strategies, without adding too many "this and thats". By cleverly using one way attacks and bombardments, you can create a superior game with only 44 territs, that is a challenging and fun game to play.
http://maps.conquerclub.com/WWII_Poland2.L.jpg

Bast, your Waterloo is yet to come. You will eventually create your map of maps. The one that rivals the great game of Chess itself, but you need to start out with a couple of maps that are NOT so ambitious.

I want you to take another look at the 60 territ template. Notice the size of the territs. They are relatively similar in size. All of the territories are as large or larger than a predetermined size. That precise size, is one of the things that you must contemplate and decide on, at the beginning of each project. This will be determined by various facts, and the use of icons is one of them. Since you know already, that the use of icons are in the plan, and the desired territ count is approaching 100, things are going to end up pretty damn tight.

That is why I believe, and advocate for, a territory count to be somewhere around 60, for this map.

Yes there are maps that have lots of territs and icons. But these maps are produced by veterans that have already learned, where all of the pitfalls are.

Smaller, simpler, less ambitious, is where an aspiring map maker, should be advised. As you grow and learn as a cartographer, you will improve your skill and knowledge. And if you are now reading this in the year 2030, I am sure that are wearing a small smile, reading this.

[natty dread]

or this reason, a few vets advocate starting with the small map. I do not subscribe to this however. My reason is simple. You will always loose detail when you scale down.

Not when you use vector graphics... For example Cairns uses a vector based software so it's no wonder he starts from small and then scales it up to large.

[porkenbeans]

or this reason, a few vets advocate starting with the small map. I do not subscribe to this however. My reason is simple. You will always loose detail when you scale down.

Not when you use vector graphics... For example Cairns uses a vector based software so it's no wonder he starts from small and then scales it up to large.

Using vectors are only good for certain things, as it limits what you can do.


Bitmap images

Bitmap images--technically called raster images--use a grid of colors known as pixels to represent images. Each pixel is assigned a specific location and color value. For example, a bicycle tire in a bitmap image is made up of a mosaic of pixels in that location. When working with bitmap images, you edit pixels rather than objects or shapes.

Bitmap images are the most common electronic medium for continuous-tone images, such as photographs or digital paintings, because they can represent subtle gradations of shades and color. Bitmap images are resolution-dependent--that is, they contain a fixed number of pixels. As a result, they can lose detail and appear jagged if they are scaled on-screen or if they are printed at a lower resolution than they were created for.


Vector graphics

Vector graphics are made up of lines and curves defined by mathematical objects called vectors. Vectors describe an image according to its geometric characteristics. For example, a bicycle tire in a vector graphic is made up of a mathematical definition of a circle drawn with a certain radius, set at a specific location, and filled with a specific color. You can move, resize, or change the color of the tire without losing the quality of the graphic.

Vector graphics are resolution-independent--that is, they can be scaled to any size and printed at any resolution without losing detail or clarity. As a result, vector graphics are the best choice for representing bold graphics that must retain crisp lines when scaled to various sizes--for example, logos.


Because computer monitors represent images by displaying them on a grid, both vector and bitmap data is displayed as pixels on-screen.

[natty dread]

Because computer monitors represent images by displaying them on a grid, both vector and bitmap data is displayed as pixels on-screen.

Well thanks, Captain Obvious.

You are of course correct about the limitations of vector graphics. Today's vector graphics softwares are quite sophisticated, but I prefer good old-fashioned bitmap. Hell, I remember when the ultimate software of computer graphics was Deluxe Paint on Amiga - whopping 64 colour palette on a 320x200 screen resolution... no layers, just a "spare page" you could use as a clipboard... and still, you should have seen the stuff some people were capable of doing with it.

I guess what I'm trying to say, technique & technology is irrelevant, what matters is how you use it. (actually, I just went on a rant of the good-ol-times and forgot what my point was)

[porkenbeans]

Because computer monitors represent images by displaying them on a grid, both vector and bitmap data is displayed as pixels on-screen.

Well thanks, Captain Obvious.

You are of course correct about the limitations of vector graphics. Today's vector graphics softwares are quite sophisticated, but I prefer good old-fashioned bitmap. Hell, I remember when the ultimate software of computer graphics was Deluxe Paint on Amiga - whopping 64 colour palette on a 320x200 screen resolution... no layers, just a "spare page" you could use as a clipboard... and still, you should have seen the stuff some people were capable of doing with it.

I guess what I'm trying to say, technique & technology is irrelevant, what matters is how you use it. (actually, I just went on a rant of the good-ol-times and forgot what my point was)

The quote is from the Photoshop guide. The red highlights are the main points that I am trying to make.

To sum it up, and put it in my own words-
Vector based software is great for things such as logos, and other images, that only have solid colors. Have you ever seen a "paint by numbers" painting, with all of the accumulated shapes that are all filled in with solid colors. There is no gradient at all within each little shape of color. These types of images can be made with "vector" graphics, and you can scale them to any size that you want without loosing any detail.

bitmap based software is used when you have an image that incorporates gradients in color or shading. Photographs, virtual paintings, and most online game maps, are done with this method.

However, you can indeed use vector, if you are shooting for a 2.0 comic book style. You can even use slash-shading like they do in comic books. But the image will look like a cartoon, not like a photograph or painting.

I see no problem with making a map that is in this comic book, or paint by numbers style. One big advantage is, you only need to make one map, as it can then be scaled to whatever size that you want.

[natty dread]

Comic book style? Take a look at cairnswk's Stalingrad map. It is made (almost) entirely with vector graphics.

[porkenbeans]

Comic book style? Take a look at cairnswk's Stalingrad map. It is made (almost) entirely with vector graphics.

Yes "comic-book" style. That is not meant as any kind of negative comment. Just an apt example of what vector software can do. All of the shapes are solid colors. There are no bevels shading or any other gradients that you would find in a photograph or painting. It is paint by numbers in effect. Not that there is anything whatsoever wrong, or improper with that.

I am merely trying to explain to you, the difference between vector, and bit map graphics. Once you understand the difference, then you will be able to choose the right software, for the project that that you are contemplating. Vector is cool, but it is NOT going to be the best method for every application. It can do things that bitmap can not. But bitmap can do things that vector can not. Neither one is "better" than the other in plain terms. They just do different things better than the other.

The fact that vector can be scaled to any size, leads many people to believe that it is somehow superior to bitmap. It is all about the application.

Take a logo for example. Logo's are simple for the most part. They have solid colors, and gradients in shading, and color, are not often used. This is perfect for vector based graphics. The same file can be used to produce an image for a postage stamp or billboard.

But if you are working with photographs, or digital paintings, or anything that requires a more real and natural appearance, you need to stick to bitmap.

[natty dread]

I'm sorry, I know I'm going to sound like a douche, but I actually know the difference between vectors and bitmap better than you, porkenbeans.

What you're saying would have been true more than 10 years ago. These days, you can do shades, gradients, bevels, etc. on vectors. You can even map textures on them, at least on any decent vector graphics software. It doesn't always look the same as bitmap, this is true. And bitmap is better for some applications, also true. I myself currently use bitmap exclusively, because I haven't had the need for the precision of vector graphics.

In the early years of computer graphics, vector graphics were very simple. They consisted of lines, circles, polygons, simple geometric patterns. Bitmap graphics were also very primitive at that time: you either had monochrome graphics, or the latest hardware could show 4 colours on the screen at the same time (compare that to the 16 million we have now!)

Then came vectors with filling. This mean that you could do filled shapes, filling the vectors with colours. At this point, your "colour by numbers" analogy would have been apt.

Later on vector graphics have evolved: gradients, phong shading, bitmap textures... you can use bitmap to fill a vector polygon. There's very little that can't be done with vectors these days. Look at almost any cairnswk map. Look at Das Schloss.

Anyway, this is enough derailing a map thread. If you want to further debate the issue, you can take it to PM.


---edit. picture tells more than 100 words... Try to guess, is the following picture made with bitmap or vectors?

[porkenbeans]

It looks like a cartoon of a box. NOT a real cardboard box. Although, I am impressed with it, if it is in fact a vector image. I did not know that you could do that with vector.

Still, It is not anything near to what you can produce with bitmap. With bitmap, I can make an image, that looks like a photograph of a cardboard box. (not a cartoon box).

[porkenbeans]

I found this while researching Reconquista. I think that it sums up the basic class structure of the time.

The People:

Iberian society was made up of three different social classes: the nobility, the commoners, and the clergy.

The Nobility:

At the higher stratum of Iberian society a few great "grandee" families bore the titles of duke, marquis, or count. These elite families were the magnates who controlled the majority of the peninsula's land in the form of large estates. The families of the lesser nobility varied greatly in the extent of their wealth and were distinguished by the title of don and a family coat of arms. The lesser nobility was made up of the younger sons of the ancient families or of the recently ennobled bourgeoisie. They usually had rural estates and were involved in commercial affairs and, like the Church, they were exempt from all taxes by the Crown.

In Castile the concept of a gentleman, a hidalgo, was essentially aristocratic. A hidalgo was a man who lived for the Reconquest of Christian Iberia. He could do the impossible through sheer physical courage and a constant effort of will. He conducted himself in accordance to a strict code of honour and respected men who had won riches by force of arms rather then manual labour. Eventually this concept of the hidalgo would spread across all segments of society as the ideal of masculinity. This ideal was one that would eventually have far-reaching consequences in the New World.

Spanish Nobility in the 16th century

The Clergy:

The clergy were divided into the secular hierarchy and the regular orders. The secular hierarchy represented the parish priest up to the cathedral chapter. The seculars were very loosely organised with members accepting the assignments that suited them. They often had to rely on their own economic activity to support themselves, and operated under the loosest supervision. By contrast, members of the regular orders were better educated, recruited from wealthier and nobler families and held considerable disdain for the seculars. They were strictly organised, better endowed, and each order was fairly autonomous from the others. Often this led to conflict and competition between the orders creating well-known rivalries like the one between the Franciscans and the Dominicans.

The Church itself was immensely powerful and shared with the nobility the privilege of exemption from the taxes levied by the Crown. Bishops, abbots and cathedral chapters all owned large demesnes that financed the building of fortresses and the maintenance of private armies. The church was militant in nature and involved itself directly in the struggles that surrounded the throne. This militant nature evolved over the 700 years of the Reconquista when the Church played a major role in the settlement of the lands reclaimed from the Muslims.

The Poblet Monastery: built in the 13th century, sponsored by the Catalan royal family who ruled Aragon.

The Commoners:

Commoners made up 90 per cent of the Iberian population. At the lowest level were the small farmers or herds men who were unskilled and paid various rents and duties to their lords: nobles, clergy or the Crown. In the coastal kingdoms, like Portugal or Aragon, where there were long seafaring traditions, Captains were a part of the middle level of commoners. Skilled agricultural workers, artisans, shopkeepers, and petty traders also belonged to the middle level of commoners. Above this group were the professionals and the merchants, "persons of independent means." The professionals were recruited from the lesser nobility or were members of the wealthy bourgeois families. They were trained for the Church, the law, or medicine. Most had university degrees or held bureaucratic office. They shared the attitudes and the lifestyles of nobility and could generally gain noble status if they did not already have it. Merchants, unlike the petty traders of the lower commoners, were usually involved in the long distance wholesale trade. They were literate and propertied, and aspired to merging into the nobility.

[theBastard]

nice research pork. the feudal system in Spain/Iberia was very close to European system. ofcourse each country has its own specialities...

[porkenbeans]

nice research pork. the feudal system in Spain/Iberia was very close to European system. ofcourse each country has its own specialities...

Yes, and with hundreds of years of history spanning the Reconquista period, There are volumes and volumes, of "operatic" stories of battles, grudges, marriages, fratricide, back stabbing, deal making and deal breaking. Kinda reminds me of good ole CC.

[porkenbeans]

Bast,
The icon file you posted was on a white background, so I just went ahead and made some new ones from scratch. You might like them better, ...or not.

Click image to enlarge.

I have noticed that this map has seemed to stall, as there have not been any updates, for over a week.

Stay tuned. I am going to post something that I have been working on. My hope is that it might give some new ideas, and maybe help put this project back on track. At the very least, it will hopefully get some reaction, and get people debating again.

[natty dread]

I like those icons.